About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)
of proposition a. also joining us is starchild, a local activist with the libertarian party of san francisco and a former candidate for the san francisco school board. he's an opponent of the measure. thank you both for taking the time to be with us today. >> thank you. >> alyssa, i'd like to give you the opportunity it share the thoughts of your position. >> so proposition a is a temporary 8-year, $79 parcel tax on properties in san francisco. and that money would go directly to supporting city college of san francisco. city college is the largest work force training center in san francisco. we train students. we also help students learn english as a second language and then of course one of our primary missions is to help students, particularly low income and underserved students, move on to 4 year institutions. we serve nearly 100,000 students in san francisco and are a tremendous resource, we think, for san francisco. the last couple years the state budget cuts we faced, $53 million in the last 3 years alone, have really made it a challenge for us to keep our doors open for san fran
joining us is starchild and former candidate for public office and opponent of the office. supervisor chiu, please explain why we should be voting for this proposition. >> so proposition e is a measure it reform our current business tax. over a decade ago, a lawsuit forced our city to use a business tax that is problematic for many reasons. first and foremost, it is a tax on jobs. every time a local employer hires someone there is a business payroll tax that's levied on that person. secondly, it is a tax that is only levied on 10 percent of all businesses and many of these are small businesses who have really been asking for reform for many many years. currently we are the only city in the state of california that uses this business payroll tax. our city government, we spent 6 months earlier this year in conversations with many leaders within the community to propose a change to a so-called gross receipts tax, which is superior on a number of levels. first and foremost, it's a tax on revenue. it's a tax on profit. it's also a progressive tax, unlike the current flat tax it's a tax that
problems are you coming to us when you don't even have the maintenance or operational people to maintain these parks? it's time for rec and park system to take care of the things that they build and not just continue to build things. thank you. >> thank you. so, matthew, my understanding is there is a current bond that's still in progress that hasn't been completed yet. why do you believe that we should have another bond issue while we still have one that's in progress? >> correct. great question. the 2008 parks bond passed by voters in 2008, obviously, covered 185 million dollars worth of investments in the park system. that sbair bond is already fully committed for projects either completed, under construction or in the pipeline to be under construction within a matter of months. that only was the down payment on that 1.4 billion dollars worgts of renovation work, ada compliance work, and it's going it take us many years to get through that entire list of work and is the next big investment we need to make. >> george, how would you like to respond? >> i would like to respond right
up to me and said why didn't anyone think of this before, it makes so much sense. it will save us money, it will mean more people voting for city attorney and treasurer and if that's not democracy, i don't know what is. there's a reason why this is getting such broad support and i think it deserves the voters' support. >> thank you. and dr. faulkner, would you please summarize why you believe people should be voting against this measure? >> originally it was all odd year elections for city government. the main focus was to have a lot of elections spread out so people would pay attention. that was the idea of the 1932 charter. it is good in the sense given the history of san francisco and, frankly, a lot of governmental problems we had historically, getting people to pay attention to city government has been very important. we had 1901 to 1907 a group called roof ring, they described the 18 supervisors then on the board as, quote, so corrupt they would eat the paint off the walls. that's the reason why we want people to pay attention to their city government. frankly, new en
maintenance, $47 million of it has not been used and the committee that is tasked with overseeing it, can't get access to where or the plan for what that money is going to be used for. where is our taxpayer money being used? these are services that should already be in the city budget. we should not have to use bond money or extra taxes to pay for them. we are being asked to pay, we are being asked to pay tra taxes while tweeter receives a tax break. hidden in the tax break deal for twitter was also their own muni bus that went directly just to their location as well as a police substation in their area. those services are paid for with taxpayer money. tax payers are required to foot the bill for this, although twitter has enough money where it could also contribute something to the community for helping us provide those services in that area. in district five, i believe that there are three main areas that need a lot of attention but i would like to work on. we need affordable housing, not just low-income housing but affordable housing for people in san francisco with average incomes. we
that redevelopment allowed a certain portion of money to be used for redevelopment. it's not about recreating redevelopment, in fact that's a closed chapter in history. lastly the idea we are reducing the mixed income housing is also a sort of fallacy. there is a purpose to providing an incentive for developers to do what's called mixed income housing, providing some of their units are affordable to mixed income households. most developers do not do that and this is an incentive for them to do it. this is providing a set of programs that are funded providing all the way for folks who were formerly homeless to folks who are middle income to be and stay in san francisco. >> any final comments, starchild. >> it sounds like peter is saying on one hand, well, no, it won't subsidize middle income people then he's saying there is a range all the way from middle income people all the way up to -- he doesn't say what the top range is. there's a guy named jim reid who is a contractor here he built himself in his own back yard a single unit house that he built for $12,000, very small, designed for on
everybody for coming out tonight and enduring us, and i just want to let you know that in my opinion district seven needs a progressive in this upcoming election i believe i'm that person. i came in second in 2008. i am the only candidate up here that ran in 2008. garnered 19% of the vote and i came in second, and i believe that we need to make our city affordable again for working people, the middle class people. it's not an affordable place to live anymore for most working people so that is something i will work on. and i will oppose major land use development because i believe it's a threat to the preservation of our neighborhoods. it's gentifies our city and it makes it basically a hostile place to live in my opinion especially living out in park merced so if you have a progressive on november 6 vote for me. thank you. >> thank you. ms. gavin. >> i am lynn gavin and i'm a pastor and like so many women there are multiple things that i do and we multi-task and kind of boring even though we didn't term that world. i am running because of the corruption and malfeasance at city
is always extremely low in that election. and it costs us over $4 million dollars to hold that election. proposition d would move the city attorney and treasurer elections to be on the same ballot as the mayor, which is a much myer turn jut election, so more people would be voting for city attorney and treasurer and every time we don't hold that very low turnout odd year election separately for city attorney and treasurer, we'll save 4.2 million dollars. prop d was put on the ballot unanimously by the board of supervisors and it's been endorsed overwhelmingly by both the democratic and republican party. >> dr. faulkner, do you think this is a good idea. >> it has several problems. the original theory is the charter of 1932 was to stagger elections so people would pay more attention to each office, in other words, elect a couple offices each time and do it on an annual basis. this has been modified with various charter amendments but the new charter but the other way theoretically you have more people involved, but in practice when you have those 3-page ballots printed on either side, o
. it reminds us of what the history was. >> there is a section for dogs and plenty of parking. transit is available on the 28 bus to get you very easily. the part is ada -- park is ada accessible. it is also a natural lake. this is your chance to stroll around the lake and let the kids run free. it also has many birds to watch. it is a place to find and appreciate what you -- a wonderful breath of fresh air. come and experience in this park and enjoy the people, picnics, and sunshine. this is a lovely place to take a stroll with your loved ones. in the middle of pacific heights, on top of these hills, it offers a great square, a peaceful beauty, large trees and grass and greenery. it features tables and benches, a playground, restaurants, and tennis courts. there are plenty of areas for football and picnics. it is very much a couple's park. there are many activities you can experience together. stroll on the pathways, bring your dog, or just picnic at one of the many tables and enjoy all that it has to offer together. many couples find this is a perfect park to throw down a blanket an
point for us coming into this. we have many members, i have a coalition, the council of community housing coalition is a coalition of developers and organizers and none of them are in social services. we understand full well you can't rob from peter to pay paul. that was one of our fundamental, if you will, bright lines was that it have revenue that did not touch funding from other sources. >> the opposition. starchild. >> money is fungible so any money put toward this source would by definition not be available for other needs, everything from parks to health care to education. this measure would get san francisco city government into the business of making home loans. this is part of what brought on the economic crisis at the federal level, fannie mae and freddie mac giving out home loans to people who couldn't afford to buy and later had their houses foreclosed. we don't know what's going to happen in the housing market for the next 30 years. i think it's foolish to set aside increasing set amounts of money for the next 3 decades when we know right now that there's thousan
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)